Thursday, 8 December 2011

Lord Ashcroft of Belize has a new poll out suggesting that Labour are set for a stonking win in the Feltham and Heston byelection but that Boris and Ken are merely neck and neck in the constituency.

This, we are told, is yet further sign of the "Ken deficit" whereby Ken is running 'behind' his party's vote nationally.

This is opposed to the "Ken bonus" that he held in previous elections where he ran 'ahead' of his party's vote nationally.

Still with me?

Well there's two problems with this. First of all, Mayoral politics in London has almost nothing to do with party affiliation, as Frank Dobson found out when he came in third place at the height of Labour's popularity.

Mayoral politics is about individuals not parties. Ken didn't win in 2000 and 2004 because he was more popular than Labour. He won because he was more popular than Steve Norris and Frank Dobson.

Second of all, far from suggesting a significant drop in his support, Ashcroft's poll shows that Ken Livingstone's vote in Feltham and Heston has actually gone up since 2008.

In Feltham and Heston last time around Boris got 41% of the votes as opposed to Ken's 37% (Source: London Elects)

Today's figures put them neck and neck at 45% to 44% (weighted) or 37% to 37% (unweighted) so a modest swing towards Ken Livingstone.

However, the swing is only modest. If matched across London, Boris would still be on course to win next year, albeit by a smaller margin than last time.

However, while unwilling to reveal the details of Boris's meetings with Mr Crosby they did reveal that:

"In terms of the Mayor's staff, the Mayor's Private Secretary met Lynton Crosby once to cover diary requests for the use of his time on 26 September 2011 at City Hall. Sir Edward Lister also attended this meeting, which lasted under 30 minutes. The Mayor's Private Secretary and Chief of Staff were both conducting this meeting in support of the office of Mayor. "

So why can they list meetings that the Mayor's staff have had with Mr Crosby but not meetings the Mayor himself has had with him?

Rather than admit his errors (deliberate or otherwise) Boris accused the Chair of the UKSA of being a "Labour stooge." This was also not true.

A spokesperson for Boris's campaign said yesterday that they had used crime figures from three years before Boris became mayor in order to get as accurate a picture as possible.

They also said that they were in the process of updating their figures.

-Update- Boris's team have been in touch to make it clear that they were comparing crime between 2005-2008 with crime between 2008-2011, rather than comparing crime between 2005 with 2011 as I was told yesterday. So they were using a different set of wrong figures to the ones they told me originally.

"upon receiving a request from Sir Simon Milton, who, as the Chief of Staff and Deputy Mayor for Policy and Planning, was, quite properly, deemed to be acting and speaking on behalf of the Mayor, the Executive Assistant to the Mayor then presented, in good faith, the request for the pass as being on behalf of the Mayor... I have been assured that the Mayor himself was never involved in discussions on this matter."

When first asked how Lynton Crosby was given an access all areas City Hall pass, a spokesperson claimed that it had been "mistakenly" approved by an "admin officer" and was "swiftly" removed when senior officials were made aware of it.

However, FOI requests by this blog have revealed that the pass was actually personally requested by "the Mayor" and signed off by his chief of staff.

Faced with these facts, the Mayor is now denying that he is "The Mayor" and has instead sought to blame a man who can no longer answer these questions himself.

Simon Milton was a close and respected aide to Boris Johnson, known for his competency and professionalism.

Ann Sindall meanwhile has been Boris Johnson's personal assistant and gatekeeper since his time at The Spectator and is so valued by Boris that he has apparently nicknamed her his "be-all and Sindall".

The idea that both Sindall or Milton would have gained a staff pass for Lynton Crosby without any discussion with, or request from, their boss does not stand up to scrutiny.

"The first and most important point to make is that no ticket offices will be closed, alright? They're not going to be closed...

Pushed on this point he went on to say that:

"The answer to the number of ticket office closures is: nil."

However it turns out that the real answer to the number of ticket office closures could be: all of them.

According to detailed London Underground plans seen by this blog, all ticket offices could be closed by 2016 with "up to 30" of them being being converted to "Travel Information Centres."

1500 members of staff will also be let go with all tube trains being made driverless by the 2020s.

Bob Crow, RMT General Secretary, said today:

“This document tells us everything we need to know about the operational strategy of London Underground - massive increase in fares alongside an unprecedented attack on jobs and safety. Every single ticket office would be closed, stations left unstaffed and drivers would be thrown out of their cabs without a single thought for passenger safety."

In Boris Johnson's 2008 transport manifesto he pledged to: "defend local ticket offices" and "stop the planned ticket office closures" adding that "there is little financial, strategic or common sense in these closures."

Today TfL insisted that the document had merely been prepared to "stimulate fresh thinking" and that nothing had yet been agreed by the Mayor.

However, the lack of any denials from City Hall, and the sheer detail of the plans, suggests that Boris's "extremely serious" promises to Londoners, may not have been quite so serious after all.

However my Freedom of Information requests reveal that the pass was requested by none other than Boris himself for a six month period, renewable.

And rather than being mistakingly authorised by an "admin officer," the pass was personally authorised by his then chief of staff, the late Sir Simon Milton.

And rather than being "swiftly withdrawn" Mr. Crosby retained the pass for almost five months.

London Assembly Labour group leader, Len Duvall, said today:

"We were given completely misleading information about how and why this pass was issued. It says a lot about the mayor and his senior staff that they don't think they need to play by the same rules as everyone else and are happy to give out totally false information to cover things up when they've been found out. It's astounding they thought it was ok to give this Tory campaign organiser full access to the seat of London government."

A spokesperson for the Mayor denied a cover up, saying that:

"We stand by the original statement because the security pass was requested by an admin officer. We sought very hard to find out who had given authorisation for the pass and checked with every director and mayoral advisor but none were aware it, Following a more detailed trawl, prompted by your FOI, it was discovered that the late Sir Simon Milton has authorised the pass. The current Chief of Staff withdrew the pass when he was informed of its existence."

Boris has repeatedly refused to reveal exactly how many meetings he has had with Crosby in City Hall during what should be strictly work hours.

In response to my Freedom of Information request, the Mayor's office claimed that the log detailing exactly when and how often Crosby used his pass was deleted "automatically" after he returned it.

As he entered the fourth year of his mayoralty, City Hall staff noticed he was devoting a 'huge' proportion of his time trying to extract funds from private donors, often bankers and, yes, sometimes his friends at News International, but also little-known overseas companies for a range of increasingly bizarre even panicky 'legacy' projects. 'Subjects such as crime and transport are now much further down the agenda,' says one despairing aide... 'Money is no object when it comes to making these prestige projects happen,' observes one senior City Hall official. Despite the excitable puffs from City Hall, these are not free gifts to the metropolis as many assume. In fact, the total bill for all the Mayor's 'vanity projects' (as they are nicknamed privately, even by his staff) could run into hundreds of millions of pounds.

Boris's "increasingly bizarre" vanity projects have included a 'living bridge' (now forgotten) a Thames walkway (now in doubt) an Olympic erection (going up) and of course the cable car.

Sponsorship for what we must now call the "Emirates Air Line" was announced today.

Now that's small change compared to the £140 million Boris has thrown at his cycle hire scheme (also promised at "no cost to taxpayers") or the as yet unknown cost of his new fleet of vanity 'Routemasters.'

Boris apparently bitterly resents what he calls this "Boles Tax" and has so far only donated a fraction of the sums he publicly committed to.

According to a new biography written by his former Telegraph colleague Sonia Purnell, Boris has:

"donated only a total of £20,000 over three years (compared to the £75,000 pledged) to fund six bursaries for a sports journalism course at the College of Communications, with another final sum of £10,000 expected. He has also not given 'nearly as much' as £75,000 to a new charity set up by Friends of Classics to support Latin and Greek teaching in state schools"

Boris has also apparently made no commitment to continue these donations if re-elected.

You can read more about this and other embarrassing claims in Just Boris: The Irresistible Rise of a Political Celebrity which can be ordered from Amazon over here.

Wednesday, 21 September 2011

"Under the Reportit scheme, signs are being put on roads encouraging people to identify utility companies they think are defying a new code of practice... A City Hall source added: "It's the ultimate in guerrilla tactics."

Yep it's the ultimate in guerilla tactics as practiced by that well known guerilla fighter John Major.

Major's Cones Hotline was labeled "the most ridiculed policy ever" after it emerged that just five of 17,000 calls made to it resulted in any cones being removed.

Boris's latest website will be hoping for a slightly better hit rate than that.

But if his other website-based schemes are anything to go by then Boris's new "war on roadworks" is likely to go the same way as John Major's.

Wednesday, 10 August 2011

“If you ask me whether I think there is a case for cutting police budgets in the light of these event, then my answer to that would be no. I think that case was always pretty frail, and it has been substantially weakened… This is not a time to think about making substantial cuts in police numbers."

Except it isn't the government that sets the police budget in London. It's Boris. And Boris isn't increasing the number of police officers in London. He's cutting them:

That's a 4% reduction in police officers and PCSOs in the past year alone.

"It wasn’t about immigration, or Eurabia, or the hadith, or the Eurocrats’ plot against the people. It wasn’t really about ideology or religion. It was all about him... There is an important lesson in the case of Anders Breivik. He killed in the name of Christianity – and yet of course we don’t blame Christians or “Christendom”. Nor, by the same token, should we blame “Islam” for all acts of terror committed by young Muslim males."

We shouldn't blame right-wing politics for right-wing terrorism, says Boris, just as we shouldn't blame Islam for Islamic terrorism.

"That means disposing of the first taboo, and accepting that the problem is Islam. Islam is the problem. To any non-Muslim reader of the Koran, Islamophobia — fear of Islam — seems a natural reaction, and, indeed, exactly what that text is intended to provoke. Judged purely on its scripture — to say nothing of what is preached in the mosques — it is the most viciously sectarian of all religions in its heartlessness towards unbelievers... What is going on in these mosques and madrasas? When is someone going to get 18th century on Islam’s mediaeval ass?"

Back then Islam definitely was the problem for Boris, just as he thinks that the right-wing fear-mongering pushed by the likes of his colleagues and friends definitely isn't the problem now.

The difference between the two cases is not one of principle but of politics.

Boris did not feel implicated by those who blamed Islam for the 7/7 attacks but he does feel implicated by those blaming right-wing politics for the Breivik attacks.

When Islam was in the dock, Boris wanted it detained without charge, but now that right-wing ideology is in the dock, he wants it released, no questions asked.

It's a sly trick, but it's one that he shouldn't be allowed to get away with.

Islamic ideology had questions to answer after 7/7 and the hard-right ideology pushed by certain pundits in the press has questions to answer now.

The Anders Breivik of this world do not emerge from nowhere, just as the English Defence Leagues of this world do not emerge from nowhere.

Thursday, 14 July 2011

The London Assembly descended into almost Ukranian style disorder yesterday when three senior Conservatives stormed out, slamming desks and hurling abuse as they went.

The statutory Deputy Mayor Richard Barnes, Deputy Mayor for Policing Kit Malthouse and the Chair of the London Fire Authority Brian Coleman all clashed with the two elected Chairs of the Assembly.

Brian Coleman's microphone was cut as he began one tirade and the camera quickly panned away as the leader of the Conservative group James Cleverly unsuccessfully tried to calm him down.

He was later seen jabbing his finger and remonstrating with City Hall lawyers off screen about the dispute.

After a second clash between Barnes and Jennette Arnold, all three men left the chamber with Coleman turning to accuse Deputy Chair Dee Doocey of "never being in this building" since accepting a peerage.

Doocey described this as a "complete and absolute lie" and is believed to be considering a complaint against him.

Monday, 9 May 2011

The big problem for Boris Johnson and his surrogates is that almost all of their criticisms of Ken Livingstone could just as easily be directed at Boris as well.

Take their outrage over Ken's "extreme" comments on Bin Laden in which he accused Barack Obama of acting like a mobster:

"Today, Ken Livingstone joined a very select company – the Taliban and the leader of Hamas – in condemning the killing of Osama bin Laden." - Andrew Gilligan

"Calling President Obama a mobster is yet another example of Ken Livingstone’s extreme views which threaten to damage London. What American business will want to invest in our city if it is run by a man who repeatedly attacks their leader?" - Tory MP Greg Hands

Or indeed if Boris hadn't made almost exactly the same points as Ken about killing Bin Laden ten years ago:

"Bin Laden should be put on trial... in the place where he organised the biggest and most terrible of his massacres, New York. He should be put on trial, because a trial would be the profoundest and most eloquent statement of the difference between our values and his. He wanted to kill as many innocent people as he could. We want justice." - Boris Johnson

Read the whole thing for an excellent argument against state-sanctioned assassinations and for Boris's description of a possible Bin Laden assassination as him being "whacked" (you know, almost as if by a mobster).

Oh, and then read Boris backpedal during an election campaign and make the exact opposite argument almost ten years later.

Tuesday, 26 April 2011

City Hall's election managers have written to journalists asking them to stop making the false claim that the Mayor of London is elected under the Alternative Vote system.

CLARIFICATION

We have noticed that there have been some inaccuracies recently regarding the election of the Mayor of London. For any editorial stories you are writing, I wanted to clarify the voting system used in London to ensure there is no voter confusion ahead of the 2012 Mayoral elections.

The Mayor of London is elected by supplementary vote, not alternative vote.

Quite how this terrible misconception could have arisen in the minds of the British press is beyond me, although it may have something to do with statements like this one in the Daily Telegraph:

It is the system, I may as well admit, that is used in London mayoral elections. [AV] may be just about tolerable there; but I can see no case whatever for introducing it across the country.

Ken Livingstone has confirmed that he will not re-appoint his disgraced former aide Lee Jasper if re-elected next year.

A spokesperson for Livingstone said today:

"No. Ken has made it clear that if he wins the Mayoral election next year there will be a new team at City Hall. Lee Jasper has moved on, he isn’t working for Ken and won’t be part of his team at City Hall."

The comments follow a rather hopeful blog post from Andrew Gilligan claiming that "the signs have been growing that Ken, if re-elected, is preparing to do what he promised in 2008 – and bring Jasper back."

Quite what these "signs" are and where they have been growing isn't exactly made clear, especially as Gilligan's former paper reported that Jasper will not return three months ago.

Even more mysteriously, Team Ken tell me that Gilligan did not even bother to ask them whether Jasper would be returning before posting his story.

Disgraced Mayoral aide returns

Meanwhile, another disgraced Mayoral aide accused of financial and sexual misconduct, falsifying a CV and using homophobic, sexist and racist language did actually return to City Hall last year.

The "signs" of Ray Lewis's return were fairly easy to spot on the websites of the BBC, Evening Standard and elsewhere but for some reason Andrew Gilligan failed to pick them up.

"London needs someone with muscular liberalism. I believe I have the right combination of political commitment... This makes me determined to fight to win the Lib Dem nomination...

"In May 1982, a Labour candidate stood in a by-election. The Labour Party was then in opposition, not in government. The candidate saw his vote collapse and he lost his deposit. But the party believed in him and his abilities. A year later, he was given a safe Labour seat, which he won comfortably at the 1983 general election. I knew the candidate, and talked with him about the campaign, before and after his by-election defeat. It taught me never to be deterred by defeat, but to use the experience to advantage – to fight on and win. The candidate’s name? Tony Blair."

Tuffrey is now said to be mulling over whether to stand, as is at least one other candidate and the selection process is not due to start until after the May elections.

Of course if those elections go as badly as some are predicting then there will be far bigger questions for the party to decide than who to pick in London.

The biggest of those is the future direction of the party and as part of their pitches, both Carman and Lembit positioned themselves as unhappy about the increasing closeness between Cameron and Clegg.

Tuffrey on the other hand is not known to have voiced similar concerns and he is widely thought to be far closer to the Orange Book wing of the party than Lembit.

For this reason Tuffrey may well be favoured by the party leader, although as we've seen from his non-apperance in Barnsley, an endorsement from Clegg is not quite the fillip to a Lib Dem campaign that it once was.

However, if Ken is to avoid the perception that he's all out of ideas then he will need a much more coherent message than the one he delivers in this Mayorwatch interview.

Just pledging to fight against the cuts is not going to be enough to win re-election and Ken needs to spell out his plans in a far clearer way than the Conservatives dared to before the General Election.

I've written more about the reality deficit facing both Ken and Boris over at The Scoop.